Documents show NCC concerns about victims of communism memorial

Documents obtained by the Citizen hint at the National Capital Commission's unease about the Wellington Street site selected for the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and shed light on an NCC advisory committee's concerns about the memorial's location and design.

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen

Updated: April 22, 2015

A drawing of the winning ABSTRAKT Studio Architecture concept for the National Memorial to Victims of Communism, which will be situated near the Supreme Court of Canada.

A National Capital Commission advisory committee had specific and continuing concerns about the location and design of the controversial Memorial to the Victims of Communism, documents obtained by the Citizen show.

The advisory committee on planning, design and realty spelled out its concerns in the minutes of three meetings – released under access to information – held between February and August 2014.

Included in material released was a short email message to the NCC board from acting CEO Jean-François Trépanier dated Aug. 23, 2013 — the same day the federal government announced the memorial would be built on a 5,000-square-metre site on Wellington Street southwest of the Supreme Court and get $1.5-million in taxpayer support (since increased to $3 million).

Trépanier forwarded a copy of the government press release announcing the site and funding to the board, adding: “Despite our best efforts, we were unable to get them to use the expression ‘intended site.’ “

Trépanier’s message suggests that the NCC — whose responsibilities for commemorations were transferred to Canadian Heritage in September 2013 — tried and failed to convince the government to be less definitive about the memorial’s location.

The chosen site had long been reserved for a new judicial building. It has since become a focus of controversy, with architect and planning organizations as well as opposition politicians calling on the government to relocate the memorial. So far, the government has shown no willingness to do so, and is proceeding with plans to built the new monument this year.

Though Trépanier’s message only hints at the NCC’s unease over the selected site, the minutes of the advisory committee of experts in real estate development, planning, urban design and architecture make its concerns explicit.

At its February 2014 meeting, the committee said the site selected for the memorial should be maintained as a building site as provided for in the Long-Term Vision and Plan for the parliamentary and judicial precincts.

If the government insisted on using the site for the memorial, there should be a “complete urban design analysis” that would reinforce the Long-Term Vision and Plan, the committee said.

“The site could accommodate a building in the future and still leave space for a monument, preferably in the western portion,” it said. “The monument should not be fronting on Confederation Boulevard in the centre of the square.”

Given the budget for the monument, the committee said, it did not need the entire space. Moreover, “the monument could be a temporary solution before a building is planned, even though it could pose problems for fundraisers.”

Finally, the language for the commemoration “should be more inclusive, evoking oppression instead of communism, which would be more relevant over time,” the committee said.

At its meeting in May 2014, the committee reiterated its concern that placing the monument on the chosen site “does not fulfil the plan for the parliamentary and judicial precincts. Building sites are scarce in the area, and using the site for a monument is not ideal.”

One member again raised the idea of relocating the monument “according to need, even if it might be challenging.”

The committee said donors’ names should be isolated from the monument, and should not be associated with the names of the victims.

Like most of the committee’s suggestions, that idea seems to have been largely ignored. The memorial’s design guidelines state that a “prominent area” on the memorial site will list the names of up to 20 donors who have given $100,000 or more.

As well, those who donate $1,000 or more will have their names, or the names of victims of communism they select, inscribed on the monument’s “Mosaic of Names.”

In August, 2014, the committee attended presentations by the six teams whose memorial designs had been selected as finalists in a national design competition.

The committee apparently shared its thoughts in some detail on each of the proposed designs, but its comments were redacted from the material released to the Citizen.

What survived was the committee’s conclusion. “Overall, members were disappointed by the schemes,” the minutes of the meeting state.

“This is an important monument, and an important topic, so the (design competition) jury has a powerful responsibility to be true to the monument and to Parliament Hill,” the committee said. “It would be advisable to seek excellence rather than respecting timelines at all costs, which would not be conducive to this goal.”

The current timetable calls for the major elements of the memorial to be completed this fall – in time for the October federal election.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.